What of the air campaigns of World War Two by the United States and Britain? Cities were bombed with incendiary devices for maximum effect.

Those words do not state the obvious: Civilians are going to be killed in the hundreds of thousands by fire. There is no other way of defining it, that is what happened. Yes, it helped the war effort for both the US and Britain. People were hung in Germany and Japan after the war for war crimes. Soldiers from the US and Britain were safe from prosecution. I don't believe they should have been prosecuted, I believe that at that very time in history, firebombing was a valid weapon of war that had to be used. I am not really sure what I am trying to say with this.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at the time....I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal....every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

Before this thread gets under way I would like to point out something.
An atrocity is an act which is considered to be shocking
If something is described as an atrocity it does not mean it is a war crime, because a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally accepted rules of war.
For example; In WW2 shooting at a pilot baling out of his aircraft may be described as an atrocity, but as it was not against the rules of war at this time it cannot be described as a war crime.

I disagree with this.

An atrocity by definition is a war crime but not every war crime is an atrocity.

Shooting one prisoner is a war crime, herding 50 or so into a barn and setting it on fire is an atrocity.

An atrocity by definition is a war crime but not every war crime is an atrocity.

Shooting one prisoner is a war crime, herding 50 or so into a barn and setting it on fire is an atrocity.

I agree with this. I would also agree with the position of, what ever the internationally agreed to conventions of war are, history bears out the tendency of selective applications on the part of victors in determining what a war crime, atrocity, or crimes against humanity are. Admiral Doernitz at Nuremburg has always been a puzzler to me. Unilateral definitions of soldier vs. enemy combatants during the conduct of a war may serve to mitigate actions by the offending nation to it's own people, but does nothing to further the spirit and intent of convention agreements.

No, it isn't.
An atrocity according to the dictonary is a extremely cruel act; a horrid act of injustice, while a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally agreed rules of war.
For example the bombing of Coventry or Dresden in WW2 can be classed as atrocities, but neither are war crimes.

No, it isn't.
An atrocity according to the dictonary is a extremely cruel act; a horrid act of injustice, while a war crime is only an act which breaks the internationally agreed rules of war.
For example the bombing of Coventry or Dresden in WW2 can be classed as atrocities, but neither are war crimes.

An act of injustice is by definition, against the law

The bombing of Coventry was no more an atrocity than the bombing of any urban area such as Rotterdam, Berlin, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Hamburg, Cologne, Tokyo or Hiroshima